Crash in sd_clock_hfclk_is_running on Soft Device S140, 7.3.0

[jthlim]

Hi, I recently noticed crashing in sd_clock_hfclk_is_running() on a nrf52840 using SoftDevice S140 7.3.0. This is the callstack:

??@0x00000ac4 (Unknown Source:0)

<signal handler called>@0xffffffe9 (Unknown Source:0)

sd_clock_hfclk_is_running@0x000276ae (.../nRF5_SDK_17.1.0_ddde560/components/softdevice/s140/headers/nrf_soc.h:720)

I'm using the following to enable the hfclk whenever I enable QSPI to avoid errata 244:

sd_clock_hfclk_request();

uint32_t isHfclkRunning = 0;

do {

  APP_ERROR_CHECK(sd_clock_hfclk_is_running(&isHfclkRunning));

} while (!isHfclkRunning);

I can trigger this somewhat reliably if I unplug and plug usb power while this code triggers.

Any tips on how I can avoid this issue?

Thanks,

Jeff

[jthlim]

Is there any other way to avoid the errata other than turning on the hfclk? it'd be nice to avoid the power draw that is associated with this workaround.

[Priyanka]

I am yet to hear from them. I will check your suggestion too in the meantime.

-Priyanka

[Priyanka]

Hi,

From the callstack, it looks like the crash has happened in application and not inside sd_clock_hfclk_is_running, since the address is 0x000276ae, which is outside Softdevice..

One possibility is that you end up calling sd_clock_hfclk_is_running from an interrupt handler that has higher (or equal) priority than SVC priority, that is not allowed by design. If you call any SD function from a interrupt handler like that, it will hardfault.

-Priyanka

[jthlim]

`sd_clock_hfclk_is_running` is defined as such in the disassembly at that address:

svc 68 @ 0x44
bx lr

The address is just a stub into the soft device.

I don't believe it is ever being called from an interrupt handler (I'm pretty sure it's not, other things would be very problematic in the code path). There is a call right above it which succeeds to the softdevice too: sd_clock_hfclk_request().

[Priyanka]

Hi,

We still feel that there might be some mess-up with svc and interrupt configuration. Maybe you end up at this point, calling sd_clock_hfclk_is_running while you have disabled interrupts then?

The call to all sd_ functions is just implemented as triggering svc interrupts, and when we tried on purpose to do that in a simple program like this, it does hardfault.

 -Priyanka

[jthlim]

The flow of the program is:

sd_clock_hfclk_request();

do {

  sd_clock_hfclk_is_running(...);

} while (...);

If any SVC interrupt causes a hard fault when called in an interrupt, would it not crash when calling sd_clock_hfclk_request first? 

[Priyanka]

Yes, that is true, unless this code gets interrupted by another interrupt, and that interupt disables irqs for example, and then return.
To demonstrate, you can see this simple program.

void SVC_Handler(void)
{
__disable_irq();
}

void __svc( 10 ) dummy( void ) ;
int main(void)
{
dummy();
__nop();
__nop();
__nop();
__nop();
dummy();
while(1)
{
}
}

It will hardfault on the second call to dummy(), because the first time the SVC handler ran, it disabled interrupts and then returned.

[jthlim]

So is there any condition under which sd_clock_hfclk_request() or the nrf5 sdk disables irqs? I don't have a single disable_irq in my entire codebase.